International Director "recount"

[JustinHorton]

I suspect just misplaced/miscounted ballot papers.

In the circumstances, I don't want to suspect. I want to know.

(That also goes for the constitutionality of the recount.)

[Michael Flatt]

There was a single voting paper issued to each Council member to register their votes for all elections.

Everyone was concerned whether the counting would be completed in time as the tellers only returned to the room shortly before the extended finish time of 6:30pm. The closeness of the vote was commented upon and there was speculation regarding whether there would be a recount. It is no real surprise to me that there might have been an error in the count.

When the results were announced it was very difficult to understand what was being said and which candidate was elected.

The fact both candidates have accepted the result avoids any further dispute.

A contributory factor to the mistake was the rescheduling of certain items ahead of the election with the knock on effect in delaying the vote being overlooked.

Perhaps, there was too much business on the Agenda?

[JustinHorton]

The fact both candidates have accepted the result avoids any further dispute.

It doesn't avoid the need for a full and proper explanation.

[Michael Flatt]

The fact both candidates have accepted the result avoids any further dispute.

It doesn't avoid the need for a full and proper explanation.

The explanation is the lack of time to count and check the votes. It was obvious to all in the room that insufficient time had been allowed.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

It might help to give some timings (from memory?). The number of papers to be checked and counted (i.e. number of individuals holding a voting paper) would have been something like, maybe 40? The time that voting started and the time that all the papers had been collected in was, maybe about 6pm? I am guessing here, I don't remember that. The result was announced shortly before 6.30pm, with the teller (I forget his name) not making the best job of reading out the results (as John Reyes has pointed out), but the reading it out took about 5 minutes.

I do recall Traci Whitfield coming back into the room at one point and indicating to the Chair that it would be about 5-10 minutes for the vote counting to be completed. There were two tellers. I have no idea where they went to count (upstairs, into a side room, in the corridor?). One of the more excruciating moments of the afternoon was Council sitting waiting for the election results, while a proposal was read out relating in part to Child Protection. A really important issue, one that shouldn't be rushed and which deserved the full attention of Council, but clearly (due to the timing) wasn't getting the attention it deserved.

[JustinHorton]

The fact both candidates have accepted the result avoids any further dispute.

It doesn't avoid the need for a full and proper explanation.

The explanation is the lack of time to count and check the votes. It was obvious to all in the room that insufficient time had been allowed.

That's not a full and proper explanation, which would include a breakdown of the vote and a textual justification of the constitutionality of the revision of the result.

Elections are sacrosanct. You don't just announce the next day that the result's been reversed and pfft.

[Michael Farthing]

A curious point not so far mentioned is that the total vote in the ID ballot was 306, whereas in vitually all other posts it was 295. Whence the extra ID votes?

[Roger de Coverly]

whereas in vitually all other posts it was 295. Whence the extra ID votes?

That could be indicative that they "lost" a voting paper or two and ones containing multiple votes at that. For the other elections the result was clear cut, so the issue wasn't pursued.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

I suspect the other counts were slightly wrong as well. Let's wait for the full recounts to be published.

[E Michael White]

A curious point not so far mentioned is that the total vote in the ID ballot was 306, whereas in vitually all other posts it was 295. Whence the extra ID votes?

Or wither the missing votes in the other elections

[Mick Norris]

I imagine partly this is about trust, and most people trust John Philpott absolutely

However, the ECF would begin to restore trust by a full explanation

[Christopher Kreuzer]

The total on the voting register was 324. John Philpott has explained that 15 of those were not cast on the day (i.e. the ballot papers prepared for those votes were never collected and signed for at the beginning of the meeting by a representative), so the total in each election (including abstentions) should be 309. The totals were mostly 295 plus one total was 300 (Commercial Director). So unless someone was consistently abstaining (not impossible) then there were around 14 votes "missing". What is needed is an explanation of whether it was a miscount, or whether a missing ballot paper was found (e.g. someone failed to hand in their ballot paper when they were collected by the tellers?) and added into the count (this is where questions would arise as to whether that is allowed). Or whether the tellers misplaced a ballot paper correctly handed in. The first step by the tellers *should* have been to verify that all ballot papers handed out were handed back in. I guess we will find out if they did that. I certainly hope it was done on the recount.

[JustinHorton]

I rather liked this:

this has been verified by an individual completely independent of the ECF

Who? Some random passer-by? Wossname next door? Geza Maroczy, consulted via ouija board?

[Christopher Kreuzer]

I rather liked this:

this has been verified by an individual completely independent of the ECF

Who? Some random passer-by? Wossname next door? Geza Maroczy, consulted via ouija board?

I would like to have this verification done publicly as well (I said as much in another thread). Anyway, maybe we should all calm down a bit and let the ECF get more statements issued.

[Michael Farthing]

My money is on that Andy Collins chap.